Re: PROPOSAL: changelog.html.gz sanitization

[Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net>]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>  >> >   If the upstream changelog file is HTML formatted, it must be
> 
>         must?
> 
>  >> >   accessible as `/usr/doc/<package>/changelog.html.gz'. A plain
>  >> >   text version of the changelog must be accessible as
>  >> >   `/usr/doc/<package>/changelog.gz' (this can be created by
>  >> >   `lynx -dump -nolist').
> 
> 
>         Why are both mandated? Why can't we just have
>  /usr/doc/<package>/changelog.gz, however it was created? I havr no
>  objections if the html stuff is there too, but what is the rationale
>  for haing both the text and the html *mandated* by policy?

My rationale for mandating a changelog.gz is for consitency, so you can
easily find the changelog in every package.

I don't have a rationale for requiring a html changelog, because that is
already in policy. It went in last fall, I believe.

I think Manoj has a point. How about:

   If the upstream changelog file is HTML formatted, it may be
   made available as /usr/doc/<package>/changelog.html.gz'. A plain
   text version of the changelog must be accessible as
   /usr/doc/<package>/changelog.gz' (this can be created by
   lynx -dump -nolist').

Can I get some seconds (or comments) on this alteration to the proposal?

-- 
see shy jo